Agenda and minutes

Venue: Anglia Room, The Conference Suite, Elizabeth House, Dereham

Contact: Committee Services  01362 656870

Items
No. Item

1.

Minutes (Agenda Item 1) pdf icon PDF 129 KB

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 17 December 2012.

Minutes:

The Minutes of the meeting held on 17 December 2012 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

 

2.

Declaration of Interest and of Representations Received (Agenda Item 3)

Members are no longer required to declare personal of prejudicial interests but are to declare any new Disclosable Pecuniary Interests that are not currently included in the Register of Interests. Members are reminded that under the Code of Conduct they are not to participate and must leave the room, for the whole of an agenda item to which they have a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest. 

 

In the interests of transparency, Members may also wish to declare any other interests they have in relation to an agenda item, that support the Nolan principles detailed within the Code of Conduct.

Minutes:

Agenda Item 8 (Deferred Item for Shipdham) – All Members had received a letter from the agent.

 

Agenda Item 9 (Schedule Item 2 – Shropham) – for transparency Councillor Bowes declared that she was friends with one of the Directors of TNP Ltd.

 

3.

Chairman's Announcements (Agenda Item 4)

Minutes:

The Chairman wished all Members a Happy New Year. 

 

All Members were encouraged to remain at the end of the meeting as there would be an information session to provide a planning update. 

4.

Local Development Framework (Standing Item)(Agenda Item 7)

To receive an update. 

Minutes:

The Planning Manager provided an update on two issues:

 

1)                 Thetford Area Action Plan (TAAP)

On Friday 11 January 2013 the legal challenge to the soundness of the TAAP had been dismissed by Lord Justice Beatson.  The judge had agreed that the area identified to the north of Thetford for development could proceed without significant harm to protected European species and that Breckland Council had not erred in its process of preparing the TAAP.  The Committee could therefore continue to give full weight to the TAAP when considering planning applications in Thetford.

 

2)                 Local Plan

A report had been considered by Cabinet on Tuesday 8 January 2013, recommending that the Council commenced preparation of a new Local Plan (in accordance with the NPPF) to replace the LDF.  The three key implications were:

 

a)                 the new Local Plan would enable the Council to revisit its housing numbers and overall planning strategy, including the opportunity to look again at the role of villages and market towns in meeting the District’s needs;

b)                 the Attleborough Area Action Plan would be migrated into the new Local Plan to become a detailed chapter of the Plan, taking into account the new housing numbers; and

c)                  the new Local Plan would also allow for policy gaps created by the new NPPF to be positively addressed (eg essential rural workers dwellings).

 

A report on the NPPF and the current LDF policies would come to the Committee on 11 February 2013. 

 

On 24 January 2013 Council would consider a recommendation from Cabinet that a working group be set up to look at the Local Plan.

 

Mr Bambridge asked if the new Local Plan would reinstate the Wind Energy document and was advised that it would be for Members to determine what was included.

 

5.

Deferred Item: Shipdham: Eight Homes with Care including Communal Area at Wood Farm, Church Lane, Shipdham: Applicant: Mr T Thompson: Reference: 3PL/2012/0770/F (Agenda Item 8a) pdf icon PDF 62 KB

Report of the Director for Commissioning.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

All Members noted that they had received direct representation from the Agent.

 

This item had been deferred from the November meeting for consideration of various matters.  Most concerns had been addressed by the applicant and the details were laid out in the report.  However, Officers were recommending refusal on grounds of highway safety and the isolated nature of the site away from local services.

 

Mr Took (Agent) had tried to clarify most points in his letter to Members.  He stressed that there would be limited additional traffic.  The access track was similar to many country lanes and already used by service vehicles.  Traffic speed was slow in the area.  The units would provide care in the community at affordable rent of 80% of market value.  The site was close to local amenities.  The planning merits outweighed the objections.

 

Councillor Turner (Ward Representative) spoke on behalf of the applicant and strongly supported the proposal.   The isolated site would provide a peaceful and natural setting for residents whilst being only 500 yards from many local facilities.  Care support staff could walk to the units from Manor Close.  Highway concerns should be looked at in context. 

 

It was confirmed that the units would be for rent, not for sale.

 

Mr Bambridge thought the units could produce an additional 30 to 70 traffic movements a day which would add to the problems of a really dangerous junction.  However, the Agent disputed those figures which he suggested related to traffic movements from four bedroom houses. 

 

Generally speaking Members felt that there were unlikely to be many additional traffic movements caused by the development which was also thought to be in a good position, closer to amenities than many areas within the Settlement Boundary.  It was also suggested that it should be looked at as an exception site, providing much needed accommodation at 80% of market rent.

 

In response to a question Councillor Turner confirmed that she was unaware of any accidents at the junction since she had lived in Shipdham.  She referred to it as a ‘self-regulating’ highway.

 

Mrs Spencer asked if the units were for single people needing care or for couples with one person needing care.  The Agent advised that both could be accommodated although primarily for single people the units would be ideal for married couples.

 

Councillor Bowes asked how it could be ensured that the units were only used by people needing care and the Solicitor informed her that that could not be guaranteed.  The terms of a legal agreement could be changed over time.

 

The recommendation for refusal was not supported.  It was proposed to approve the application as an exception site.  The Highways objections were not considered sustainable because the road was set out in such a way as to be self-regulating and the visibility problems were no greater than other places.

 

The Planning Manager asked Members to think about restricting the use by condition for persons in need of care for dementia and for no other use class.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

6.

Schedule of Planning Applications (Agenda Item 9) pdf icon PDF 126 KB

To consider the Schedule of Planning Applications:

 

Item No

Applicant

Parish

Page No

1

Lincoln Care Home

Swanton Morley

15-19

2

TNP Ltd

Shropham

20-23

3

Gooderstone Farming Company

Narborough

24-30

4

Mr A Guerin

Dereham

31-33

5

Mundford Poultry Ltd

Mundford

34-37

6

Tey Gardens LLP

Thetford

38-44

 

Minutes:

RESOLVED that the applications be determined as follows:

 

a)         Item 1: SWANTON MORLEY: Lincoln House Care Home, Dereham Road: New 30 bed dementia unit: Applicant: Lincoln House Care Home: Reference: 3PL/2012/1061/O

 

This was an outline application will all matters reserved apart from layout and scale.  The main concern was the impact on the landscape.  The new building would be in a prominent position on the main approach to the village.  Screening would take time to take effect and might cause future problems by restricting light into and outlook from the building. 

 

The Highway Authority had raised no objection to the new access but local concerns had been received regarding the effect of additional traffic movements on properties opposite and the dangers of the sharp bends in the vicinity.

 

Mr Atterwill (Parish Council) raised concerns about the design of the building which he described as a ‘red eyesore’; accidents at the junction; drainage issues and possible further extensions to the complex.

 

Mr Maxwell (objector, also representing his neighbour Mrs Carlton) was a local resident of 19 years and a police officer.  He raised concerns about the loss of outlook; increased traffic problems; and affect on amenity from noise and light.

 

Mr Evans (Agent) explained the history of the site.  Permission had been given for a 30 bed dementia unit to the rear of the site in 2009.  That application had lapsed.  It had been decided that the unit would be too far from the existing care home.  With regard to local concerns, significant amendments had been made to the application.  The building had been moved further back and would not look dissimilar to what was already there; increased car park spaces had been provided; a 10 metre landscaping belt had been included; and facilities in the new unit could be offered for local use through the doctor’s surgery.

 

Councillor Robert Richmond (Ward Representative) had attended the Parish Council meeting at which many local people had raised concerns regarding the loss of amenity and changed environment.  He was concerned about the dangerous bends and pedestrian safety.

 

Councillor Bambridge asked if alternative access arrangements could be considered but was advised by the Solicitor that no details were available and so the application should be considered as it stood.

 

Issues concerning the positioning, staffing and residents of the new unit were clarified.  The new unit would be for high dependency dementia patients.  The previously approved site would potentially be used for further assisted living units.

 

Councillor Bowes suggested that if the design was attractive there would be no need for screening to hide the building.

 

With regard to whether there was need for the facility, Dr Kaushal explained that currently there were no purpose built units in the area and the intention was to set a gold standard for dementia care.

 

Refused, as recommended.

 

b)         Item 2: SHROPHAM: Grange Farm, Hargham Road:  Proposed portal frame extension to existing factory to create covered yard area: Applicant: TNP Ltd: Reference: 3PL/2012/1083/F

 

For transparency Councillor  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

7.

Applications determined by the Director of Commissioning (Agenda Item 10) pdf icon PDF 64 KB

Report of the Director of Commissioning

 

Members are requested to raise any questions at least two working days before the meeting to allow information to be provided to the Committee.

 

Minutes:

Noted.

 

8.

Enforcement Items (For Information)(Agenda Item 11) pdf icon PDF 62 KB

Minutes:

Noted.

 

9.

Applications Determined by Norfolk County Council (For Information)(Agenda Item 12) pdf icon PDF 31 KB

Minutes:

Noted.

 

10.

Appeal Decisions (For Information)(Agenda Item 13)

APP/F2605/C/12/2175004 & 2175005 : Land at 33 The Street, Sporle, Kings Lynn, PE32 2DS : Appeals against enforcement notice with regard to the erection of a front porch extension to the dwelling house on the land, by Mr D R E Lambert & Mrs T L Lambert : Reference : ENF/2012/0030/CAS

Decision : Appeals Dismissed

 

APP/F2605/D/12/2185670 : Vine Cottage, The Street, Great Cressingham, Thetford, IP25 6NL : Appeal against the refusal to grant planning permission for the construction of a single and 2 storey extension to existing 2 storey dwelling house, including construction of garage (3 spaces) to front of site, by Mr Christopher Wallis : Reference : 3PL/2012/0831/F

Decision : Appeal Dismissed

 

APP/F2605/A/12/2181059 : 7 Barton Close, Swaffham, PE37 7SB : Appeal against the refusal to grant planning permission for the erection of a detached single storey dwelling by Mr Karl Bennett : Reference : 3PL/2011/1288/F

Decision : Appeal Dismissed

Minutes:

Noted.